Appeal No. 2004-0053 Page 7
Application No. 09/678,635
In our view, independent claims 1 and 10 are not readable on Kressel. With
regard to claim 1, it is our determination that Kressel's terminal strip 10 (which the
examiner equates to the claimed anchoring structure) is not capable of being used in
the claimed manner (e.g., being supported along a path of travel of a lead carrier for a
window covering mechanism). As to claim 10, Kressel's headed stud 12 or 112 (which
the examiner equates to the claimed engagement structure) does not have a lateral slot
capable of fitting over an upper through slot of a lead carrier of a window covering
mechanism.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 10, and claims 2 to 6 and 11-14 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kressel is reversed.
The anticipation rejection based on Frisbie
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Frisbie but not the rejection of claims 2 to 4, 8 to 13 and 15.
Frisbie's invention relates to improvements in door checks and holders. The
objects of his invention are (1) to check and break the force of a temporarily opened
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007